The bill, which will amend the Public Health Act, will establish 150-metre "safe access zones" around abortion clinics, inside which it will be illegal to obstruct and harass people accessing clinics or record them without their consent.

Advertisement

The most contentious provision, however, is the creation of a broad communication offence, which renders it illegal to make "a communication that relates to abortions, by any means", that could cause "distress or anxiety" to a person accessing or leaving a clinic.

The laws will not apply to church grounds or the forecourt outside NSW Parliament, or to campaigning during elections.

The offences carry penalties of up to six months jail for a first offence and 12 months jail for a subsequent offence.

Member of the Legislative Assembly vote on a failed amendment to the Safe Access Zones legislation on Thursday night.Credit:NSW Parliament

The bill's passage was preceded by a long debate which stretched late into Thursday night, after more than 40 MPs spoke on the bill.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian, who granted Liberal MPs a conscience vote, supported the bill, as did Nationals leader and Deputy Premier John Barilaro.

Those in favour grounded their arguments in the right of women to access medical services free from interference, while those who opposed the bill argued it encroached too far on the right to free speech and protest.

Many of the arguments drew upon starkly different characterisations of the role of "sidewalk counsellors" who oppose abortion and are known to stand outside clinics with the intention of changing the minds of women entering the clinics.

Health minister Brad Hazzard, one of six government ministers to speak in favour of the bill, said that while he believed abortion should be a "last resort" women should be able to access facilities "without any concerns at all that others would seek to impose those views on you at your most vulnerable time".

In an argument echoed by many speakers, Mr Hazzard said the bill struck an appropriate balance between competing rights, as it limited the constraint on speech to within the zones.

"Free speech and the right to protest can occur here outside the Parliament. It can occur in streets around Sydney, it can occur in the streets right across this state and indeed right across this nation," Mr Hazzard said.

Ms Davies, who is pro life, defended "side-walk counsellors" as people who provided women entering clinics with information to make a "truly informed decision".

"They are providing the other pieces of information that some women choose to accept. They don't force their views onto these women. They are offering simply another choice," she said.

Loading

Labor MP Trish Doyle said she supported the bill "as someone who needed to visit a reproductive health clinic at a very difficult time in my life and was harassed by these judgmental supposed sidewalk counsellors, shouting at me that I was a baby killer".

Other MPs grounded their opposition in legal arguments, stating the bill was technically flawed, too broad in its ambit, the penalties were too harsh, and it lacked detail, such as the starting position from which the zones should be measured.

In this category was Minister for Family and Community Services Pru Goward who said her decision to reject the bill left her with a "heavy heart".

"I am, and I have always been, a strong supporter of a woman’s right to an abortion," Ms Goward, a former sex discrimination commissioner, said.

The bill, she argued, lacked an objective test to determine what constituted harassment, and "in its current form is a very powerful weapon of censorship".

Loading

The chamber sat until the early hours of Friday, debating 19 proposed amendments. All of them failed.

Safe access zones have already been legislated in Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and NT.

The Victorian legislation is being appealed before High Court to determine whether criminalising abortion-related communication inside the zones breaches the constitutional right to implied freedom of political communication.

The decision will have implications for NSW, as the communication offence in the proposed bill is almost identical to the Victorian offence.

Loading

The NSW Attorney-General's department, along with attorneys-general from the Commonwealth, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland departments, have each lodged submissions with the High Court defending the constitutional validity of the Victorian legislation.